Conference Agenda

Across Europe, teacher education faces a double layer of complexity in preparing a new generation of teachers: programmes must deal with pressures within their own curricula and institutions (e.g., inclusion agendas, accountability demands, and limited curriculum time), while simultaneously preparing student teachers for the complex realities of contemporary classrooms, where classroom discipline and teacher well-being remain persistent concerns. International survey evidence shows that establishing a supportive and engaging learning environment continues to be a substantial demand for teachers and that classroom-management self-efficacy is systematically related to teachers’ stress experiences (OECD, 2025). Classroom management is therefore not a peripheral topic in initial teacher education: it is repeatedly reported as a core challenge for student teachers, particularly during workplace learning, yet it often receives limited and implicit curricular attention (Adams et al., 2020; Oldeboom, 2024). This emphasis is consistent with earlier international evidence that classroom discipline is among the most frequently reported problems of beginning teachers (Kwok, 2021).

In essence, classroom management can be viewed as a form of complex work. Rather than a set of isolated behaviours to control, classroom management involves coordinating an ecological and social system in which learning, relationships, norms, tasks, space, and time continuously interact, producing non-linear and sometimes emergent patterns (Cochran-Smith et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2019).

Importantly, the way classroom management is conceptualised in initial teacher education provides a foundational frame for how student teachers first encounter the field: it shapes what is made visible as “classroom management,” which elements are treated as central versus peripheral, and what kinds of problems student teachers learn to notice, name and act upon. In that sense, conceptualisations in teacher education do not merely describe classroom management; they also configure the learning opportunities through which student teachers develop early professional judgement, what counts as a relevant cue, what explanations are considered plausible, and which intervention repertoires are legitimised. When teacher education presents classroom management primarily as a linear toolbox of techniques, novices may be inclined to search for deterministic “if X, then Y” solutions; when it presents classroom management as complexity work, novices are more likely to develop adaptive sensemaking and responsive decision-making under uncertainty, capabilities that are essential for European classrooms characterised by diversity, competing demands, and rapidly shifting dynamics.

The main research question in this paper therefore asks: How is classroom management conceptualised across curriculum layers (intended, implemented, attained) in Dutch teacher education, and what could this imply for designing complexity-responsive teacher education for European classrooms?

The EFORBIS project aims to educate first-year teacher training students about finance and, through dual teaching practice, qualify them to implement financial education in schools later on. In the first phase, first-year teacher training students are made aware of the challenges of financial decision-making based on their individual life situations. A large proportion of this group are women, who are considered vulnerable in terms of financial education. This group receives special attention in the project. In a second phase, future teachers will be trained to teach financial education in schools by gaining their own experience in making independent financial decisions through project work. Social constructivism and constructivist didactics according to Kersten Reich (cf. Reich 2012) serve as the basis for the didactic design of the seminar. The research question is: How will a seminar concept for financial education for teacher training students in the early stages of their studies be designed, based on evidence-based research findings regarding its didactic implementation and analysis of its impact?

The inconsistency in the anchoring of financial education (because of the federalist education system) leads to very heterogeneous prior knowledge among students in the early stages of their studies (cf. Happ et al. 2021, p. 48). The early stages of study are a phase associated with complex transitions and, in this context, with many young people making their first financial decisions of greater significance. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that financial problems are often cited as a reason for dropping out of university (cf. Heublein et al. 2012, p. 11; Heublein et al. 2022, p. 13).

At the same time, financial education requires professional teachers as multipliers to support financial education in schools and implement it in educational practice (cf. Compen et al. 2019, p. 15; Urban et al. 2020, p. 22). This requires a concept based on university teaching methodology that is committed to good teaching practice and considers not only the everyday world of students but also teaching practice, thus offering space for reflection on teaching and opportunities for dual teaching practice. In this way, approaches can be experienced and reflected upon for use in school practice.

The OECD/INFE (2016) Competency Framework serves as a reference model for financial education within the scope of the project. This provides a framework model that refers to the content areas of “Money and Transactions,” “Planning and Managing,” “Risk and Reward,” and “Financial Landscape.” The competency framework model proves to be particularly comprehensive and differentiated in terms of integrating different content areas and competency categories at the individual, societal, and systemic levels. However, according to Kaminski and Friebel, financial education encompasses “not only the consumer perspective but also the corporate perspective” (Kaminski/Friebel, 2012, p. 6), as this is the only way to enable “a multi-perspective examination of finance, financial products, and the related institutional framework” (ebd.).

With regard to entrepreneurial thinking and action, the project draws on the EntreComp competence framework for entrepreneurial skills (cf. Bacigalupo et al. 2016). This follows a broad understanding of entrepreneurship education, which is geared towards promoting entrepreneurial thinking and action. Individuals should be empowered to make reflective, independent decisions based on their own initiative and to translate ideas and solution strategies into action based on problems, thereby taking actual action and experiencing self-efficacy, which is also important in the context of financial literacy. In addition, the entrepreneurial aspect enables the integration of additional dimensions of action (marketing, human resources, etc.) and thus offers a more comprehensive view of the consequences of individual decisions and (financial) system interrelationships.

Dynamic Assessment is a way of developing language skills where teaching and learning are combined into one process (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). This paper reports on a part of the dissertation study of adults learning English as L2, exploring the potential of Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA) (Poehner, 2009) for diagnostics, and promoting the development of the L2 adult learners listening skill in English (Ableeva, 2010). The aim of the paper is to discuss the situations where learners provide the correct answer, while the understanding of this answer is lacking. I will support the theoretical premise of dynamic assessment that task completion by itself does not necessarily mean understanding and, similarly, that learners not completing a task does not mean that learner development has not occurred. To address this challenge, I propose the framework of Dynamic Assessment of Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT) which views teaching and assessment as an integral process (Poehner, 2008; 2009; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; DeBoer & Leontjev, 2020) inform assessment. In DA Teaching and Assessment are considered as two separate concepts but ONE longitudinal interwoven process, despite the traditional view of them as two different concepts in education: teaching is a process of ‘filling in the empty vessels’ and assessment is a one-time event on ‘measuring’ the results of teaching. Most contexts are focused on assessment and feedback of the product of learning (e.g., Leontjev, 2022; Mäkipää, 2021).

The main aim of this presentation is to analyse the process of development of listening skills in adult second language learners in group settings through the framework of Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA) answering the following question for this paper:

1) WHY the correct answer by a learner does not always mean development?

The definition of Dynamic Assessment that I use in my work is “Dynamic assessment integrates assessment and instruction into a seamless, unified activity aimed at promoting learner development through appropriate forms of mediation that are sensitive to the individual‘s (or in some cases a group’s) current abilities.” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004). Dynamic Assessment has not yet become a mainstream practice in educational institutions (Leontjev, 2022). However, there are research projects that incorporate it into the Language Diagnostic protocol (Dynamic Diagnostic Language Assessment (DD-LANG) project by the University of Jyvaskyla). These and many other works have been focused on individual schoolchildren or university students, there are few studies of adult development with the application of Dynamic Assessment.

This research question was the result of a bigger PhD project that involved 44 participants, 60 hours of video-recorded Group-Dynamic Assessment (G-DA) sessions as well as individual DA sessions. In this paper I will focus on several cases when the correct answer is provided by the learner, lacking understanding, and how the mediator was able to both reveal a lack of understanding but also learners’ partial knowledge and reasons for their struggle and promote the learner’ development through provision of mediation sensitive to learners’ ZPD. I will lead the audience through the mediator’s interactions with the DA of learners, interpreting these with reference to the theory of G-DA and will discuss the study implications for teachers and practitioners through practical steps to promote the development of listening in adults.

In the context of current educational reform in Kazakhstan, schools face the essential task of fostering students’ interest in learning while enhancing the quality of education. One of the most urgent goals is to move away from passive learning models and develop students' capacity for independent research, critical thinking, and self-reflection. This aligns with strategic national objectives, including the digital transformation of education, integration into global knowledge networks, and a renewed emphasis on scientific literacy and lifelong learning. These national trends reflect broader global challenges, where traditional methods often fall short of equipping students with the competencies needed for the 21st century.

To respond to these challenges, our research explores the effectiveness of project-based learning (PBL) as a pedagogical model for fostering research and critical thinking skills in secondary school students. The study was conducted within the framework of the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE), where students are expected to develop skills such as formulating hypotheses, conducting practical investigations, and interpreting results. In our school’s context, these skills were not being fully realized through traditional instruction, prompting us to apply a structured PBL approach.

The main aim of this study is to investigate how the implementation of project-based learning influences students’ cognitive and academic development. Our research is guided by three key questions:

1. Does project-based learning contribute to the development of research and critical thinking skills among students?

2. What is the impact of PBL on students’ academic performance?

3. Are there measurable differences in learning outcomes between a control group taught through traditional methods and an experimental group engaged in PBL?

From a theoretical perspective, the study draws upon constructivist and experiential learning frameworks, which emphasize student agency, reflection, and the active construction of knowledge. As noted by Thomas (2000) and Bell (2010), PBL aligns with these frameworks by offering students the opportunity to explore real world issues through guided inquiry collaboration, and extended projects. This approach not only reinforces content learning but also enhances higher order thinking skills by integrating research design, evaluation, and presentation skills. In Kazakhstan, scholars such as Nurbavliyev and Sydykhov (2023) have emphasized the potential of PBL to transform passive learning into active problem solving, particularly in STEM fields.

In addition, this study is situated within the national and global discourse on educational innovation. Kazakhstan’s Presidential Address emphasizes the importance of introducing new teaching technologies and methods that promote intellectual development and professional readiness. Our research contributes to this agenda by evaluating how an alternative instructional strategy like PBL can raise students’ motivation, autonomy, and learning outcomes. While the research was conducted in a Kazakhstani school, the implications of the findings are relevant to other international settings where educators are seeking methods to bridge the gap between curriculum goals and student engagement. Thus, the study connects local innovation to the broader European and global movement toward more student centered, competency based education.